Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Convert Linux to Windows

philipbohun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 459 posts

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#131

Post by dartharva »

johnea wrote: post #99
pdonis wrote: post #68

To the extent binary distribution is "unstable" on Linux, it's because users aren't expected to just download random binaries from wherever, as is normal on Windows (and Mac, for that matter). Users are expected to either obtain binaries from their distro, or compile them from source. In either case, all of the issues about binary distribution being "unstable" are invisible to users. Which is the point. People who wa…

Thank you very much! I was about to post almost the same thing, so I'll reply to your post instead (and upvote): It's pretty funny to read a critisism of linux s/w distribution along the lines of the dificulty of distributing binaries. This is one of the biggest security vulnerabilities of windows. 3rd parties distributing binary executables. At least in a typical linux distro the binary is built by the distributing…

> At least in a typical linux distro the binary is built by the distributing org, with some review of where the source comes from.

This "feature" falls apart for nonfree software, which most commercial apps are. You can use Spotify and Steam's PPA but will similarly have no idea what source was included in them.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#132

Post by dartharva »

lucasoshiro wrote: post #29

> Imagine we made a new Linux distro. This distro would provide a desktop environment that looks close enough to Windows that a Windows user could use it without training. You could install and run Windows applications exactly as you do on Windows; no extra work needed. Why not use ReactOS?

Because ReactOS doesn't work?

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#133

Post by pdonis »

dartharva wrote: post #129
pdonis wrote: post #68

To the extent binary distribution is "unstable" on Linux, it's because users aren't expected to just download random binaries from wherever, as is normal on Windows (and Mac, for that matter). Users are expected to either obtain binaries from their distro, or compile them from source. In either case, all of the issues about binary distribution being "unstable" are invisible to users. Which is the point. People who wa…

Speak for yourself. I have been using Linux for a decade and would want nothing more if standalone application setups like those in Windows became the norm of software distribution. Centralized package management is a curse. Apps should be responsible for their own updates, not the OS.

> Apps should be responsible for their own updates, not the OS.

Distros are not quite "the OS". You don't need a distro to run Linux.

The role distros play as far as Linux applications are concerned is more like an app store in the Windows (or Mac) world. Of course Apple has locked down their smartphones that way basically since their inception, and their desktop OS has been becoming more and more like that. So has Windows.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#134

Post by Cyphase »

trelane wrote: post #46
coderenegade wrote: post #35

I don't think a new distro is needed. Most commonly used windows apps can be made to work through wine, but the hacks used to make one app work can break others and vice versa. Similarly, everyone needs to play around with settings individually to get things to work. What works on one person's machine might not work on another's, because there's no consistency in, effectively, configuration. The simplest solution, to…

The concept of containers for Windows applications running in WINE is called "bottles." https://support.codeweavers.com/en_US/2-getting-started/2-in... I believe it started with Cedega, but I could be wrong. That's where I first recall encountering it.

https://usebottles.com/

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#135

Post by csdvrx »

pbohun wrote: post #122
notfed wrote: post #121

> Thesis: We should create a distro of Linux that runs Windows binaries by default via Wine. On Debian you're one package away: sudo apt install wine-binfmt Otherwise you're still pretty close: echo 'none /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc binfmt_misc defaults 0 0' >> /etc/fstab mount -a echo ':DOSWin:M::MZ::/usr/bin/wine:' > /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc/register

This is great! Someone else mentioned binfmt_misc. I didn't know about that.

The next step is to isolate the Windows applications: you could use different WINEPREFIX, but I think the better way is to do it like android: one "user" per application.

It's not just to prevent applications to read other applications files, but also to firewall each application individually

For example, if you don't want the application you've mapped to user id 1001 to have any networking, use iptables with '-m owner --uid-owner 1001 -j DROP'

I moved from Windows to Linux a few years ago, I have a few Windows apps I still love a lot (mostly Word and Excel) and thanks to wine I will always be able to use them.

They are also extremely fast: cold starting Word (or Excel) on my laptop takes less than a second, and use far less RAM

Personally, I'd rather purchase a few shrink wrapped old versions of Office from ebay than bother with LibreOffice, Abiword or the online version of Office.

EDIT: I can't find the old recording I made showing how fast it was, but here's what it looks like on my hypland desktop: you can see in btop it doesn't take much resources https://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn/comments/11w3zzj/hyprland_...

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#136

Post by LeFantome »

Const-me wrote: post #25
arghwhat wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that this also underlines that the post's premise of Windows having a simple stable ABI - win32 sure is stable, but that's not what applications are coded against anymore. Sure, you can run a 20 year old app, but that is not the same as a current app still working in 20 years, or even 5.

> that's not what applications are coded against anymore Not sure I follow. Sure, most modern programs are not using old-school WinAPI with GDI, but the stuff they added later is also rather stable. For example, the Chromium-based browser I’m looking at uses Direct3D 11 for graphics. It implements a few abstraction layers on top (ANGLE, Skia) but these are parts of the browser not the OS. I view all that modern stuff…

I agree. On Linux (and Mac really), new APIs replace old ones and old binaries stop working.

On Windows, new layers are applied over the old. There is DirectX 9-12. New binaries may use 12 but the ones still using 9 are perfectly happy. Things like .NET work the same. You can have multiple apps installed relying on different .NET versions.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#138

Post by cratermoon »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #57

People always talk about this “I can run a 20 year .exe file” situation but when I tell you that I have never, in 30+ years, EVER had a need to run a 20+ year executable, it just makes me go… yeah, and? Sure I believe backwards compatibility is a nice to have feature, but I have never, nor do I think I will ever, have a need to run 20-year-old software.

I use Nikon Scan 4.0.0. It was released in either 2008 or 2004.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#139

Post by worthless-trash »

icedchai wrote: post #111
okanat wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Linux userspace had libraries with stable ABI, you could just tar or zip binaries and they would work. You wouldn't need to bundle system layer. This is how you deploy server apps on Windows Server systems. You just unpack and they work. It is not a packaging problem. It is a system design problem. Linux ecosystem simply isn't nice for binary distribution except the kernel, mostly.

Linux feels a bit different since the complete system is not controlled by a single vendor. You have multiple distributions with their own kernel versions, libc versions, library dependencies, etc. Mac OS has solved this but that is obviously a single vendor. FreeBSD has decent backwards compatibility (through the -compat packages), but that is also a single vendor.

-compat packages exist on fedora-like systems too, usually allowing it older versions to run. I can't say how far back, but RHEL usually has current version - 1 for -compat packages.

Re: Convert Linux to Windows

#140

Post by cratermoon »

hagbard_c wrote: post #23
ranger_danger wrote: post #7

> NOTE: I am not against Apple or Microsoft. They have amazing engineers! I don't think they're being malicious. Rather, I think the incentives for these companies are improperly aligned. Improperly aligned incentives? Who gets to say what that is? Is it "improper" to maximize profit per their own board's guidelines? I have a feeling OP has some predefined notion of nobility they expect people to somehow operate unde…

> Is it "improper" to maximize profit per their own board's guidelines? From the standpoint of the end user the incentives are improperly aligned. If they had made hammers they would have included licence agreements for their use with specific types of nails and actively prevented users from using competitor's nails. They also would have made sure yesterday's hammer would not be sufficient to hammer in today's nail,…

Worth reading: Unauthorized Bread. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-...
Post reply on HN